[osis-core] Going beyond reference system for IDs?

[Patrick Durusau]

Greetings,

I am trying to split up the replies to my post yesterday so we can focus 
on separate issues.

This particular thread is on the topic of allowing IDs like Matt.1.1.a 
(which is unknown in the reference system used by KJV for instance)

Todd suggests (below) that osisIDs should not be able to go beyond the 
reference system of which they are a part.

Some sympathy for that view, after all that is what allows a user to 
know what to point to in terms of constructing a reference to any 
edition of the KJV from another text (bible, commentary, monograph or 
article), which would be an osisRef but pointing to an osisID.

On the other hand, what does that leave for Todd's early case of 
Matt.1.2-6a in the CEV? That is what the CEV really reports for a 
container of text.

Note that I am also sympathetic that we should not have osisIDs that 
look and smell like range operators (Steve's point).

Hmmm, someone may have already made this point better, but would it be 
permissible to say that for the CEV, that Matt.1.2-6a is really not an 
osisID at all but is in fact an osisRef? That gets us the range operator 
and grain, although it is a pointer with a grain syntax that does not 
occur in any standard Bible edition. Perhaps part of the problem is that 
I did not clearly see what the CEV has as not osisID but osisRefs. In 
that case, you could have:

<p osisID="CEV.Matt.p2" osisRef="Matt.1.2-6@a"> and we don't gurantee 
the grain to make any sense?

Todd: does this help/hurt/indifferent?

Patrick



Todd Tillinghast wrote:

>>Troy,
>>
>>Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
>>
>>>Todd Tillinghast wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Quick clarification:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>I think Patrick's suggestion (let me word it in my terms and see if
>>>Patrick corrects me) is good which states:
>>>
>>>If a document claims it uses/implements say, the KJV versification
>>>scheme, then Mat, Mat.1, Mat.1.6 are all ok, AND
>>>Mat.1.6.myOwnSubdivision is also perfectly ok.
>>>
>>>if this document actually wishes anyone outside this document to be
>>>able to reach Mat.1.6.myOwnSubdivision with an osisRef, then that
>>>document would have to define its own KJVextended reference system
>>>(probably not very common, if ever).
>>>
>>Yes!
>>
>
>How would we differentiate between cases where the encoder has gone
>their own way and extended the reference system from the actual
>reference system.
>
>It seems that we are taking liberties with the identifiers defined by
>the reference system without an delineation between where the reference
>system identifier ends and where the extension begins.  It would seem
>that if we want to do this sort of thing that we should at least be
>clear where the extension is.  (For example Matt.1.6@a)
>
>But I am not sure what purpose the extension is trying to serve.  Can
>someone enlighten me regarding what benefit there is by allowing the
>extension behavior.  All I see are multiple step searches and no clear
>benefit.
>
>Do we only allow extension to standard references that have the MAXIMUM
>number of number of identifiers defined by the reference system? Can I
>say Matt.1.myOwnSubdivision and Matt.1.44 to both mean subdivisions of
>Matt.1 of my own design?  Also potentially problematic is the "Hebrew"
>reference system Patrick has reference to in the past, which seems to
>have an "a" and "b" part for the verses in the Psalms, but not in the
>rest of the Bible.  In this case we would have to intuitively know that
>"Ps.1.1.a" is a standard identifier and not an extension.  We could
>however extend it with "Ps.1.1.a.a" and "Ps.1.1.a.b" AND could
>ambiguously extend "Ps.1.1" with "Ps.1.1.a"!
>
>Todd
>

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu